Pottash v. Hartenfeld Bag Co.

Citations

• 267 Pa. 96
• 110 A. 147
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 815

Syllabus

<p>Foreign attachment — Dissolution—Entry of security — Statement of cause of action — Statutes—Repeals—Implication—Acts of June IS, 18S6, P. L. 588, and May 12, 1897, P. L. 62.</p> <p>1. Under section 62 of the Act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 583, if security is entered to dissolve a foreign attachment the cause shall thereafter proceed as in action begun by summons.</p> <p>2. The Act of May 12, 1897, P. L. 62, which provides that the writ shall abate if no statement of the cause of action lias been filed within one year after its issuance, does not apply in cases where security has been entered to dissolve the attachment.</p> <p>3. Repeals by implication are not favored, and will not be adjudged, if the two enactments can be reasonably construed together.</p> <p>Practice, G. P. — Affidavit of defense — Judgment—Act of May U, 1915, P. L. 1)88 — Appeals—Decree on reversal.</p> <p>4. In reversing the court below for refusing to enter judgment for want of an affidavit of defense, final judgment will not be entered for plaintiff, but under section 20 of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, defendant will be allowed fifteen days after the return of the record to file an affidavit of defense to the merits.</p> <p>Pollock v. Chelsea Fibre Mills, 46 Pa. Superior Ct. 126, disapproved.</p>